Soaring Rhetoric vs Braying(Rebuznos)

The dedication of the Museum of African American History(The National Museum of African American History and Culture) this past weekend brought forth soaring rhetoric and strong feelings involving such sentiments as love and patriotism.Former Presidents and change agents partook of and contributed to the heady brew.It was fitting that the first black President of the U.S. be the chief dedicator,knowing as he does the gap between the sentiment and the initiation of the measures necessary to attain equality before the law and equal access to opportunity.I suspect that G.W.Bush was sincere in his sentiment but still cannot see the barriers that were imposed by his (and his dad’s) supreme court appointments.

The presidential( on Monday night)debate was at a much lower level of rhetoric.It showed a well prepared intelligent,experienced candidate mixing it up with a bar room brawler unprepared and relying on one liners to hide the absence of a plan.The lies, the whimpering,the sniffing and the threatening were unseemly and disgraceful.One loyal republican woman put it as best she could. She said something like”I vote my conservative values and if a jackass is leading this mule train so be it”.this blog has already advised…”Los Rebuznos de burro no llegan al cielo”the lady is not Hispanic so the translation is “the braying of a jackass does not reach heaven.”The jackass may lead the mule train over a cliff and the nation as well, if we permit it.The prize is the control of a politicized supreme court.The death of Justice Hughes in the late 60s permitted the abuses of M’Carthy and Parnell Thomas(later jailed for fraud and theft) to imprison several and to financially destroy many.It grows harder each day not to hear the conspiracy theorists.

Post navigation

6 Comments

“Distribution of product”?Is access “product”? The fall of empire after empire in the history of the world traces to revolt based on intolerable inequity even when an elite have seemingly overwhelming arms superiority.Clever rationalizations such as divine right and primogeniture(male)only postponed the inevitable. Practical survivability and moral superiority are a duo that can help homo sapiens persist.American capitalistic democrancy could be the model. Trumpism is likely to run us out of time.

“Product” is defined as the creation of anything (resources) that humans may need to maximize health, longevity, survivability. This includes invention as well as manufacturing and distribution. It includes the growth of options – which is of the essence in the expansion of “access”.
I share Daedal2207’s concerns about the development of an “elite” CLASS that might become glutinous and deny needed resources to those PERCEIVED to be of other CLASSES. Primitive and “tribal” seem to be correlated. The history of empires demonstrates the danger of social dysfunctions widely held. Something new occurred born with the wisdom of our founders. The focus on individual rights and individual liberty, which was the essence of original intent, diminished (but did not eliminate) the power of class to divide us and opened opportunity to many who otherwise would not have had options. Merit, regardless class, rose to the fore and we are surrounded by a wealth of product that merit inspired. Today’s retrograde focus again on “class” and “diversity” has exacerbated the primitive, tribe-like dysfunctions that lead to the kinds of revolts that history reveals.
In essence, we need groups made up of individuals who are rational and expect others in their “group” to be the same. Example: Expecting others to behave irrationally is a dysfunction. For survival’s sake we all MUST weigh risk against gain. If disproportionate numbers of my “group” are TRULY a threat to “others” it is irrational to expect “others” to view me without special caution. “Feeling” hostility against “others” who are being rational demonstrates a disservice to both others and the self. Preventing those of your “group” from being a threat to others is the proper correction.
Skin pigmentation is among the least valid reasons for a “group” to exist, but apparently the visual is primitively easy, and thus prevalent. Consider:
If it is true that the police are a lethal threat to blacks it is rational for blacks to fear and retaliate against cops. If this premise is not true, fear and retaliations are tragic dysfunctions.
If it is true that disproportionate numbers of blacks are tragically and disfunctionally retaliating against the police it is rational to expect greater numbers of blacks to be incarcerated and for the police to treat strangers of this race with extra caution.
Note the FUNDAMENTAL importance of TRUTH.

Daedal2207 provides for our consideration his opinion about substance and style. The truth-seeker’s job is first that of objectively analyzing content. The nature of style, though less meaningful than content for purposes of knowing how to get to the “better” places, does have importance relative to the success, or failure, in the clarification of that content. My educational and professional background (instruction and business) was intrinsic with that of the “arts”. When style itself is not the content (Art for Art’s sake), I know the power of style to overwhelm and distort content. Daedal2207 writes: “The jackass may lead the mule train over a cliff and the nation as well, if we permit it.” In context we can understand that the “jackass” is meant to be Trump, but interestingly it is also the symbol for the Democrat Party. It is the study of content and not style (Trump’s or Hillary’s) which will clarify best each Party’s proximity to the “cliff”.
Daedal2207 writes: “The prize is the control of a politicized supreme court.” This is substance of a high order. Trump has provided a list of potential jurists who are dedicated to an originalist interpretation of our Constitution. The Democrats advocate jurists who advocate for the flexibility of what is called “a living Constitution”. This allows them to reinterpret Constitutional law to suit THEIR current beliefs as to what the law should be. (Clearly this usurps or bypasses the law-making duties of a sensitive-to-the-will-of-the-people Congress.) In the sense that ALL social plans for governance are political, our issue must be that of guiding the process of judicial issues such that our future is enhanced, not threatened. Is it a good idea or a bad idea to allow the personal judgments of a few jurists (influenced by political winds) to alter and impact so powerfully the laws that dictate how we must live?

Originalism vs Progressivism,one more time.Just another “Back to the Future” with rose colored glasses and blinders vs “move the present toward a different but predictable future(3D and virtual).It is not whose Ox is being gored; it is fattening the livestock and sharing.Loaves and fishes will take a whole lot more doing.(Divine!)

The issue is exactly about the kind of “glasses” that are being worn by whom. How do we avoid the various distortions of vision imposed by the “glasses and blinders” of wishful and/or false belief? My recommendation has been to proceed as if one is an engineer and not a moralist. We want to structure our environment such that it is rich with the resources that we humans will need as we travel our voyage through time. For this purpose incentivizing those who by the luck of nature, or by culture, are most able to be powerfully productive seems like a more workable idea than mandating on “moral” basis a powerful government assigned the duty of forcing greater equality in the distributions of product. Force works to a degree, but it is less efficient than free markets. It seems contradictory that a system that is less efficient (thereby resulting in greater pain and suffering) could be “envisioned” as something that is morally superior. Apparently powerfully distortive “glasses” must be involved.